This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maethordaer (talk | contribs) at 15:57, 28 July 2011 (Importance to WP:INTR). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:57, 28 July 2011 by Maethordaer (talk | contribs) (Importance to WP:INTR)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
Chinese and Japanese Unequal Treaties
It's also used concerning the Japanese unequal treaties (1854 and the following years) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.238.177.66 (talk)
Chinese wiki has a featured article on unequal treaties and more info can be translated from there. Wareware 01:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Peking Treaty of 1880
Apparently China and the USA signed a treaty in 1880 that dealt with imported labor and the trade in opium. The treaty was later reneged upon by USA. Is this treaty discussed anywhere in Misplaced Pages? --Slashme 18:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand the Sino-Portuguese Treaty problem. China always had more than enough power to put Portugal out of China, meaning that the Portuguese were in China with the full support of the authorities. This has to be sorted out.
Who uses this term?
The article begins by saying "The term Unequal Treaties, mainly used by China, ..." Is the term mainly used by China, or is it mainly used to refer to Chinese history, by Anglophone or other Western scholars? LordAmeth 12:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Use of Asian characters
Do we really need the names in Chinese, etc, when these names easily can be found in the articles on the treaties themselves?--Niohe 17:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Page move
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
In my studies of China, I have found the unequal treaty practice to commonly be referred to as a "system", for example in Fairbank's "China:A New History". For this reason, I moved the page to the new title. However, I now realize that I may have acted too quickly, so if there is any objection to the move, notify me on my talk page, and we can move it back to the old title. --Danaman5 02:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, regardless of whether or not we keep the "system" in the title, I think "Treaty" should be uncapitalized, as it is not a proper noun. This is per the Manual of Style. --Danaman5 02:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think this was a badly considered move for many reasons. Please give people a chance to respond before you move an important article like this.
- As far as I know, Fairbank talked about the "treaty port system" or the "treaty system", which is something quite distinct from the treaties themselves. I have never heard about the "Unequal treaty system" before. Please give me a page reference.
- I tried to reverse the move, but it didn't work. I suggest that you talk to administrator and ask him or her to move the page back.--Niohe 02:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, you're right. I should have been much more thoughtful before making such a rash move. On the bright side, however, I seem to have been able to reverse the move without any trouble, though I am not an administrator. I also went through and corrected all redirect issues stemming from this incident, so I think everything is back to the way it should be. I may have been thinking about the "Treaty century" or some other treaty related term in Fairbank. One thing, though: Surely "Unequal Treaties" isn't a proper noun? Shouldn't the "t" in treaties be lowercase? I also think that the title should be singular, rather than plural. (i.e. Unequal treaty) Once again, though, I apologize for my foolishness. Sometimes I get a little overeager to apply knowledge from my chosen field. Like I said, I think I fixed all the redirects, but let me know if you spot any problems, and I can take care of them. --Danaman5 03:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- I actually have heard of the "treaty system", probably from Fairbank, but I agree that the treaty system is distinct from the treaties themselves. As for Treaties being capitalized, it's to differentiate this specific term, as it pertains to East Asia in the 19th-20th centuries, from any treaties that anyone thinks were unequal or unfair. That makes sense, right? LordAmeth 08:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, you're right. I should have been much more thoughtful before making such a rash move. On the bright side, however, I seem to have been able to reverse the move without any trouble, though I am not an administrator. I also went through and corrected all redirect issues stemming from this incident, so I think everything is back to the way it should be. I may have been thinking about the "Treaty century" or some other treaty related term in Fairbank. One thing, though: Surely "Unequal Treaties" isn't a proper noun? Shouldn't the "t" in treaties be lowercase? I also think that the title should be singular, rather than plural. (i.e. Unequal treaty) Once again, though, I apologize for my foolishness. Sometimes I get a little overeager to apply knowledge from my chosen field. Like I said, I think I fixed all the redirects, but let me know if you spot any problems, and I can take care of them. --Danaman5 03:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Anony ref
Some user 68.194.103.128 just goes around tagging a number of articles as need reference. I don't know what is so controversial about this page at the moment. How about tagging a sentence or two and not the entire article. Especially since only a few treaty articles are fully ready. Benjwong 00:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Non-Asian Treaties
The whole concept of calling these Asian treaties "Unequal" is a bit odd! History is full of treaties entered into by willing and unwilling parties. Without seeking to represent any case for the so called "Central Powers" at the end of the Great War in 1918, what was the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and the other treaties involving those powers if not Unequal?! (The Germans referred to it as the "Diktat" of Versailles well before Hitler) And there are plenty more examples from around the world besides! - Sunbeam16 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunbeam16 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. Looking at the title, the Versailles treaty was the first that I thought of when it came to "unequal". KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 22:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- This Article refers to a Sino-Japanese (Asian?) viewpoint of the world. At the time all outsiders were barbarians to be considered as inferior (much like the Western viewpoint it must be admitted). The public shock of being defeated was profound, and so the term 'unequal treaties' was used to describe diplomatic processes that in the past had always been to the advantage of the Asian powers. The term unequal should be read 'Unequal to us' rather than simply unequal. I believe this should be made implicitly clear in the page, as at the time the Western powers believed previous encounters had been wholly unequal to the Western delegations.
An example of the mindset; Managing the Barbarians in Time of Crisis - http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob52.html (JollyJackRoger (talk) 10:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC))
- What you describe is just east Asian chauvinism and hypocrisy. The idea that the parties to a treaty must be "equal" is obviously ridiculous and has never been a pre-condition for treaties' validity at any time in any part of the world. Most treaties, especially pre-20th century, formalized the outcome of wars in which one side did better than the other and were therefore not equal. Were the treaties between China and its tributary states equal? When I have time I will edit the page to make sure this is clear. Qemist (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- You make a fair point. Regardless, these continue to be called "the Unequal Treaties" in scholarship. We here at Misplaced Pages report what is widely accepted; we don't seek to change it or represent it differently. LordAmeth (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Recent Studies
Unfortunately I have not now the time to do it myself, but this basically sound and useful article could be fleshed out with two recent studies: Dong Wang, China's Unequal Treaties: Narrating National History (Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2005) and Michael R. Auslin, Negotiating with Imperialism: The Unequal Treaties and the Culture of Japanese Diplomacy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004). ch (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was no consensus to move. –Juliancolton | 01:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Unequal Treaties → Unequal treaty — This was originally tagged as {{db-housekeeping}}, but I'm bringing it here because it could potentially be a controversial move. See this section on my talk page for more background. This is a procedural WP:RM request, so I am neutral. Cunard (talk) 05:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support - I requested the deletion. It does not appear from the article that "Unequal Treaties" is the proper name of a specific set of treaties, rather it refers to a type of treaty. The article - except for one occurrence of "Unequal" in the second para of the Overview section and what appears to be a miscapitalized section header - consistently uses "unequal treay" and "unequal treaties". Since this is not a proper name the article should be moved. Otto4711 (talk) 05:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Partial oppose It should be unequal treaties, since it covers (in principle) all of them. But the capitalization should be fixed. (This is effectively a proper name, since there have been treaties which were unequal before and since; but idiom is lower case.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as this article seems to cover a set of treaties instead of the concept, it should be plural. 76.66.200.21 (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. This is not just about a general concept of various treaties which happen to be unequal. Rather, the capitalized proper term is most commonly applied within a very particular geographical and historical context; within that context, it is not any one 'unequal treaty' but all of "The Unequal Treaties" which apply to a given country which are considered together as a single historical force, phenomenon, or situation within each country's history. LordAmeth (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Lord Ameth, or at any rate, what he had written before I hit an edit conflict. Dekimasuよ! 05:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per the same reasoning as given by LordAmeth. This is a very common usage referring to a specific set of unequal treaties. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Other Treaties Under this Concept
After reading the aforementioned concepts, I agree that there is a generally understood concept of "Unequal Treaties" as treaties imposed upon Asian countries roughly during the nineteenth century. But there doesn't seem to be any recognition of the 1855 Anglo-Thai treaty?
Also, how about "unequal treaties" imposed upon semi-autonomous countries? The existing list includes treaties imposed on Korea and China by Japan, so why not other Asian countries or semi-autonomous countries? For example:
- the 1856 Treaty between Nepal and Tibet recognizing powers of Nepal in Tibet and an indemnity payment;
- the 1904 Anglo-Tibetan treaty recognizing a broad expansion of exclusive English privileges in Tibet;
- the 1915 Treaty of Kyakhta between Mongolia, Russia, and China recognizing exclusive privileges of Russia in Mongolia.
164.76.106.154 (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Japan-Korea relations in 1904-1905
Historiographer is correct here.
| Korean Misplaced Pages | English Misplaced Pages | Japanese Misplaced Pages | Comments? |
|---|---|---|---|
| ko:한일의정서 | Japan-Korea Treaty of 1904 | ja:日韓議定書 | See Korean Mission to the Conference on the Limitation of Armament, Washington, D.C., 1921-1922. (1922). Korea's Appeal, p. 34., p. 34, at Google Books; excerpt, "Treaty of Alliance Between Japan and Korea, dated February 23, 1904." |
| ko:제1차 한일 협약 | Japan-Korea Protocol of August 1904 | ja:第一次日韓協約 | See Korean Mission, p. 35., p. 35, at Google Books; excerpt, "Alleged Treaty, dated August 22, 1904." |
| Japan-Korea Protocol of April 1905 | See Korean Mission, p. 35., p. 35, at Google Books; excerpt, "Alleged Treaty, dated April 1, 1905." | ||
| Japan-Korea Protocol of August 1905 | See Korean Mission, p. 35., p. 35, at Google Books; excerpt, "Alleged Treaty, dated August 13, 1905." | ||
| ko:제2차 한일 협약 | Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905 | ja:第二次日韓協約 | ko:을사조약 (en:Eulsa Treaty) See Korean Mission, p. 35., p. 35, at Google Books; excerpt, "Alleged Treaty, dated November 17, 1905." |
| ko:제3차 한일 협약 | Japan-Korea Treaty of 1907 | ja:第三次日韓協約 | See Korean Mission, p. 35., p. 35, at Google Books; excerpt, "Alleged Treaty, dated July 24, 1907." |
When I reverted Historiographer's edit, I was simply wrong. --Tenmei (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Japan-Korea Protocol of April 1905 and Japan-Korea Protocol of August 1905 have not suitable original name. I also know nothing about it.--Historiographer (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class Hong Kong articles
- Top-importance Hong Kong articles
- WikiProject Hong Kong articles
- C-Class China-related articles
- Top-importance China-related articles
- C-Class China-related articles of Top-importance
- WikiProject China articles
- C-Class Japan-related articles
- High-importance Japan-related articles
- WikiProject Japan articles
- C-Class law articles
- Low-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- C-Class Korea-related articles
- Mid-importance Korea-related articles
- WikiProject Korea articles
- C-Class International relations articles
- High-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- C-Class Chinese military history articles
- Chinese military history task force articles
- C-Class Japanese military history articles
- Japanese military history task force articles
- C-Class Korean military history articles
- Korean military history task force articles